Consumer Law LibrarySearchBy decadeBy respondentBy topicBy outcomeDataAbout

Julian D. Grollnek

Volume 56 · 56 F.T.C. 920

Citation
56 F.T.C. 920
Docket
7607
Complaint
1959-10-18
Decision
1960-02-13
Document type
consent order
Case type
consumer protection
Statutes
FTC Act (section 5); Wool Products Labeling Act
Industry
apparel manufacturing
Outcome
consent order entered
Relief
cease_and_desist; compliance_reporting
Commission counsel
Charles Donelan
Source
Original volume PDF
Original PDF
This decision as a PDF

product labeling

Cite this decision

Julian D. Grollnek, 56 F.T.C. 920 (1960). Consumer Law Library, https://consumerlawlibrary.org/decisions/v056-0192

Report an error in this record (decision id v056-0192)

Order status: unknown. Sunset may be extended by the latest qualifying federal-court complaint alleging an order violation; complaints, dismissal/appeal outcomes, and respondent-specific extensions are not fully tracked.

Cited by 0 later FTC decisions

Cites

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

In the MATTER OF JULIAN D. GROLLNEK, ET Al, TRADING AS G. & G. SPORTSWEAR CO., ETC.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC., IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING ACTS Docket 7607. Complaint, Oct. 138, 1959—Decision, Feb. 13, 1960 Consent order requiring Los Angeles manufacturers to cease violating the Wool Products Labeling Act by labeling as “60% wool, 40% rayon,” women's suits which contained substantially less than 60% wool, by failing to attach labels to the skirts of two-piece suits, and by failing in other respects to comply with labeling requirements. Mr. Charles Donelan for the Commission.

Inirmat Decision BY Warrer R. Jounson, Heartnc Examiner In the complaint dated October 18, 1959, the respondents are charged with violating the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Wool Products Labeling Act and the Rules and Regulations made pursuant. thereto.

On December 3, 1959, the respondents entered into an agreement! with counsel in support. of the complaint. for a consent order. Under the foregoing agreement, the respondents admit the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint. The parties agree, among other things, that. the cease and desist. order there set forth may be entered without. further notice and have the same force and effect as if entered after a full hearing and the document includes a waiver by the respondents of all rights to challenge or contest the validity of the order issuing in accordance therewith. The agreement further recites that it is for settlement purposes oniv and does not constitute an admission by the respondents that they have violated the law as alleged in the complaint.

The hearing examiner finds that the content of the agreement meets all of the requirements of section 3.25(b) of the Rules of the Commission.

The hearing examiner being of the opinion that the agreement Decision 56 F.T.C.

Lt is ordered, That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the order to cease and desist.

← 56 F.T.C. 917 · 56 F.T.C. 920 →